In a surprising legal move, Alexander Pring-Wilson pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter today in the death of Michael Colono. He was going to be charged with voluntary manslaughter in his third trial. Today he was sentenced to two years in prison, but could get credit for the almost ten months he served at various times between his arrest and when the verdict in his first trial was thrown out.
"He has long ago accepted moral responsibility for his actions," said Pring-Wilson's lawyer, Peter Parker. "He took a life. He will live with that and he will struggle with that for the rest of his life."
Colono's sister called for a longer sentence, saying, "It's not fair, and it's all Alexander Pring-Wilson's fault, the man who thinks he's God."
I agree with her that it's not fair - not fair that a young man is going to jail for an act of self-defense. Pring-Wilson thinks he's God for walking down the street and not wanting to get killed???
I'm disappointed that Pring-Wilson decided not to fight for his innocence in a third trial. But I guess he doesn't want to risk a longer sentence, and perhaps he and his family are running out of money. I bet he feels terrible about what happened, and that should be punishment enough. It's sad that he won't ever be able to become a lawyer. I hope the other inmates don't make his life too miserable in prison, and I hope he can live a moderately happy life once he gets out.
I wasn't at the sentencing, so for more details, check out the AP's article.
Showing posts with label Alexander Pring-Wilson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alexander Pring-Wilson. Show all posts
Friday, January 11, 2008
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The jury goes back to work
The jury in the trial of Alexander Pring-Wilson met with Judge Christopher Muse today, and he basically told them to keep deliberating. He reminded the panel of what constitutes reasonable doubt - they do not need to have "proof to a mathematical certainty" but merely "an abiding conviction that the charge is true." Then he advised them to be open-minded toward each other's opinions and told them that the court most likely will not be able to find another jury "more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent than you are." If the jury still can't arrive at a verdict, then a mistrial will be declared. If this happens the prosecution is likely to try Pring-Wilson a third time.
Monday, December 10, 2007
The jury is deadlocked!
After six days of deliberations, the jury in the Pring-Wilson trial is deadlocked. The jurors announced this afternoon that they are unable to reach a consensus. Judge Christopher Muse is meeting with the jurors tomorrow to give them additional instructions, and they are expected to continue deliberating.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Pring-Wilson case goes to jury
Closing arguments took place in the Pring-Wilson trial today, and this afternoon the jury began deliberating. I couldn't be there, unfortunately, so I don't have any more details than that.
I predict that the jury will take a long time to arrive at a verdict. The evidence was not clear cut enough to make it obvious one way or another. I might be wrong, though, and I would really like to be there for the verdict, so I'll probably be calling the DA's press office from time to time to see if a verdict is imminent.
In my opinion, the jury definitely ought to find him not guilty, and I predict that they will. To convict someone in a criminal case, the prosecution needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and they didn't quite do that. From the evidence that was presented in court, Pring-Wilson's story makes at least as much sense as the prosecution's. I hope the jury looks objectively at the facts and makes the correct decision.
I predict that the jury will take a long time to arrive at a verdict. The evidence was not clear cut enough to make it obvious one way or another. I might be wrong, though, and I would really like to be there for the verdict, so I'll probably be calling the DA's press office from time to time to see if a verdict is imminent.
In my opinion, the jury definitely ought to find him not guilty, and I predict that they will. To convict someone in a criminal case, the prosecution needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and they didn't quite do that. From the evidence that was presented in court, Pring-Wilson's story makes at least as much sense as the prosecution's. I hope the jury looks objectively at the facts and makes the correct decision.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Pring-Wilson testifies, part 2
Today I got to see Alexander Pring-Wilson finish his testimony. Not surprisingy, there were numerous reporters present in the courtroom, as well as a camera crew from Channel 7.
Adrienne Lynch, the prosecutor, cross examined Pring-Wilson for over two hours. First, she made a big deal out of the fact that he said he was punched in the nose and that he covered his head with his hands while he was being beaten, yet he had no injuries to his nose, hands, or forearms. He claimed, however, that he had cuts on his nose and on his finger, but admitted that he accidentally cut his finger with his knife.
Then Lynch asked Pring-Wilson why he stabbed the person in front of him if he was so concerned about being pounded in the back of the head. "I did what I had to do to get out from that experience," he replied.
Lynch sarcastically asked Pring-Wilson if he remembered asking her to kneel down before him yesterday, referring to his exasperated request that she demonstrate how she thought he knelt when he was being attacked. The question was objected to, and the objection was sustained.
She also questioned him extensively about his testimony in the first trial, giving him a lengthy transcript from which to read and follow along, and focusing on his lies to police. Lynch also noted that Pring-Wilson's estimate of how many concussions he had previously suffered increased from 10 to 12 from the first trial to the second. He replied that he was "not really sure" of the exact number. Additionally, she asked if he had "accused" the state police chemist of moving his knife to make it look like he had hidden it. "I'm not sure if I accused him, but I'm pretty sure that's what happened," said Pring-Wilson. "There's no other way it could have gotten there...I'm perfectly willing to believe that it was an accident and not an act of malice."
Another point that Lynch raised was Pring-Wilson's choice to wear his jeans and button-down shirt from the night of the fight to the police station, but not his flip flops and yellow raincoat, which she argued were more "distinctive" and therefore more recognizable. "I would also argue that raincoats are commonly worn by people when it's raining," he retorted.
Next, Lynch got Pring-Wilson to admit that he had carried a knife since the age of 12 but decided not to bring the knife to the police station. He explained that he didn't bring the knife "for the same reason I think it's inappropriate to take it to airports."
After being asked about the forensic tests performed on his hands, Pring-Wilson replied that "Everything's so jumbled after going through this whole process twice." Lynch theorized that Pring-Wilson's left hand appeared dirtier than his right in a police photograph because Rodriguez knocked him to the ground after he stabbed Colono, and he broke his fall with his left hand while holding the knife in his right. "I don't ever recall falling with my knife in my hand," he replied.
Next, Lynch called attention to a piece of Pring-Wilson's testimony in the first trial when he describes how he felt after the fight and begins to say the word "hangover" but quickly changes it to "headache." He tried really hard to avoid the question, and then to read his complete response, but he was eventually forced to concede that he did, indeed, say that.
Later she picked on Pring-Wilson for walking home after calling the police and for calling a driveway an alley. She also asked him why he swore at Colono if he wasn't angry (all he said was that he wasn't angry before he heard Colono's insults; he very well could have been angry afterward) and asked him who was in the driver's seat of the car. Pring-Wilson responded that he didn't remember very well because "He came out of the car very quickly. He hit me...I fell to the ground."
Then, Lynch attacked Pring-Wilson for using a weapon on two unarmed men, repeatedly asking if either Rodriguez or Colono had a weapon, to which he replied that, no, he did not see any weapons on them. "They were kicking at me, and they were punching me, and there were two of them, and I was on the ground," Pring-Wilson shot back. Lynch suggested that no one kicked Pring-Wilson, but that instead his feet were cut up because he was wearing flip flops in the middle of a city, and he answered that "They were cut up because I was attacked by two men in the middle of that city." Next she raised the point that Pring-Wilson never called for help and that he says he was on his knees yet was still able to stab Colono four to five times, twice in the chest.
At 11:00 there was a break, after which Lynch completed her questions by showing the jury a picture of Pring-Wilson on the morning of April 12, in which he does not appear to have any serious injuries. Then Peter Parker, the defense attorney, did a re-direct that lasted about a half an hour. He had Pring-Wilson point out the pocket in his jeans where he always carried his knife and then showed the jury a picture where a cut on Pring-Wilson's nose is visible and a picture of his hands in which they appear to be the same color. Pring-Wilson also was able to read his complete response to the question where he almost said "hangover." Finally he described his state of mind during the attack: "I...saying afraid isn't quite right. I was more afraid than I've ever been in my whole life...It puts you in a horible place."
Throughout his testimony, Pring-Wilson remained calm, never becoming angry or losing his composure. He seemed well-prepared, making sure he had Lynch's questions right and remaining silent until she actually asked something in question form. He often answered questions by saying things like "you can see it there" or "that's what the records say, and I have no reason to doubt them" instead of saying yes or no. Lynch, on the other hand, was rather belligerent, repeating questions over and over and seeming to become angry at Pring-Wilson when he answered indirectly or attempted to elaborate. Both appeared confident and articulate - it's difficult to tell which way the jury will lean. Personally, I think Pring-Wilson did a great job and definitely placed a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's claims.
Pring-Wilson wasn't the only witness today - his girlfriend, Janice Olmstead, testified next, describing how his voice sounded normal when she talked to him before the fight but that he sounded "floaty, unconnected, just different" when he called her from the police station after the incident. She was followed by Edmundo Martinez, a close friend of Pring-Wilson's who testified about his "reputation for peacefulness." Last was Dr. Jeremy Schmahmann, a neurologist who described the symptoms of concussions - which do not necessarily include external injuries and are not detectable by most tests performed in doctors' offices - and gave the opinion that Pring-Wilson suffered a grade 2 concussion, the second most severe classification. He was excellent on cross examination, sticking firmly to his opinions. When Lynch hinted that it would be unwise to trust Pring-Wilson's description of his symptoms, he answered that "a physician in the emergency room who disbelieves his patient should not be a physician." He even called one of her questions "nonsense."
Wow, what a long post! Well, there are three more witnesses scheduled for tomorrow, and closings will take place then or Monday.
Adrienne Lynch, the prosecutor, cross examined Pring-Wilson for over two hours. First, she made a big deal out of the fact that he said he was punched in the nose and that he covered his head with his hands while he was being beaten, yet he had no injuries to his nose, hands, or forearms. He claimed, however, that he had cuts on his nose and on his finger, but admitted that he accidentally cut his finger with his knife.
Then Lynch asked Pring-Wilson why he stabbed the person in front of him if he was so concerned about being pounded in the back of the head. "I did what I had to do to get out from that experience," he replied.
Lynch sarcastically asked Pring-Wilson if he remembered asking her to kneel down before him yesterday, referring to his exasperated request that she demonstrate how she thought he knelt when he was being attacked. The question was objected to, and the objection was sustained.
She also questioned him extensively about his testimony in the first trial, giving him a lengthy transcript from which to read and follow along, and focusing on his lies to police. Lynch also noted that Pring-Wilson's estimate of how many concussions he had previously suffered increased from 10 to 12 from the first trial to the second. He replied that he was "not really sure" of the exact number. Additionally, she asked if he had "accused" the state police chemist of moving his knife to make it look like he had hidden it. "I'm not sure if I accused him, but I'm pretty sure that's what happened," said Pring-Wilson. "There's no other way it could have gotten there...I'm perfectly willing to believe that it was an accident and not an act of malice."
Another point that Lynch raised was Pring-Wilson's choice to wear his jeans and button-down shirt from the night of the fight to the police station, but not his flip flops and yellow raincoat, which she argued were more "distinctive" and therefore more recognizable. "I would also argue that raincoats are commonly worn by people when it's raining," he retorted.
Next, Lynch got Pring-Wilson to admit that he had carried a knife since the age of 12 but decided not to bring the knife to the police station. He explained that he didn't bring the knife "for the same reason I think it's inappropriate to take it to airports."
After being asked about the forensic tests performed on his hands, Pring-Wilson replied that "Everything's so jumbled after going through this whole process twice." Lynch theorized that Pring-Wilson's left hand appeared dirtier than his right in a police photograph because Rodriguez knocked him to the ground after he stabbed Colono, and he broke his fall with his left hand while holding the knife in his right. "I don't ever recall falling with my knife in my hand," he replied.
Next, Lynch called attention to a piece of Pring-Wilson's testimony in the first trial when he describes how he felt after the fight and begins to say the word "hangover" but quickly changes it to "headache." He tried really hard to avoid the question, and then to read his complete response, but he was eventually forced to concede that he did, indeed, say that.
Later she picked on Pring-Wilson for walking home after calling the police and for calling a driveway an alley. She also asked him why he swore at Colono if he wasn't angry (all he said was that he wasn't angry before he heard Colono's insults; he very well could have been angry afterward) and asked him who was in the driver's seat of the car. Pring-Wilson responded that he didn't remember very well because "He came out of the car very quickly. He hit me...I fell to the ground."
Then, Lynch attacked Pring-Wilson for using a weapon on two unarmed men, repeatedly asking if either Rodriguez or Colono had a weapon, to which he replied that, no, he did not see any weapons on them. "They were kicking at me, and they were punching me, and there were two of them, and I was on the ground," Pring-Wilson shot back. Lynch suggested that no one kicked Pring-Wilson, but that instead his feet were cut up because he was wearing flip flops in the middle of a city, and he answered that "They were cut up because I was attacked by two men in the middle of that city." Next she raised the point that Pring-Wilson never called for help and that he says he was on his knees yet was still able to stab Colono four to five times, twice in the chest.
At 11:00 there was a break, after which Lynch completed her questions by showing the jury a picture of Pring-Wilson on the morning of April 12, in which he does not appear to have any serious injuries. Then Peter Parker, the defense attorney, did a re-direct that lasted about a half an hour. He had Pring-Wilson point out the pocket in his jeans where he always carried his knife and then showed the jury a picture where a cut on Pring-Wilson's nose is visible and a picture of his hands in which they appear to be the same color. Pring-Wilson also was able to read his complete response to the question where he almost said "hangover." Finally he described his state of mind during the attack: "I...saying afraid isn't quite right. I was more afraid than I've ever been in my whole life...It puts you in a horible place."
Throughout his testimony, Pring-Wilson remained calm, never becoming angry or losing his composure. He seemed well-prepared, making sure he had Lynch's questions right and remaining silent until she actually asked something in question form. He often answered questions by saying things like "you can see it there" or "that's what the records say, and I have no reason to doubt them" instead of saying yes or no. Lynch, on the other hand, was rather belligerent, repeating questions over and over and seeming to become angry at Pring-Wilson when he answered indirectly or attempted to elaborate. Both appeared confident and articulate - it's difficult to tell which way the jury will lean. Personally, I think Pring-Wilson did a great job and definitely placed a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's claims.
Pring-Wilson wasn't the only witness today - his girlfriend, Janice Olmstead, testified next, describing how his voice sounded normal when she talked to him before the fight but that he sounded "floaty, unconnected, just different" when he called her from the police station after the incident. She was followed by Edmundo Martinez, a close friend of Pring-Wilson's who testified about his "reputation for peacefulness." Last was Dr. Jeremy Schmahmann, a neurologist who described the symptoms of concussions - which do not necessarily include external injuries and are not detectable by most tests performed in doctors' offices - and gave the opinion that Pring-Wilson suffered a grade 2 concussion, the second most severe classification. He was excellent on cross examination, sticking firmly to his opinions. When Lynch hinted that it would be unwise to trust Pring-Wilson's description of his symptoms, he answered that "a physician in the emergency room who disbelieves his patient should not be a physician." He even called one of her questions "nonsense."
Wow, what a long post! Well, there are three more witnesses scheduled for tomorrow, and closings will take place then or Monday.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Pring-Wilson testifies!
Alexander Pring-Wilson testified in his own defense today, but, most unfortunately, I can't give a very good description of what he said because I was unable to be there! I had a big test smack in the middle of the day. Plus, thanks to the wonderful news media, I didn't even know he would be testifying. Clearly they knew he'd be testifying - there are video clips and pictures of Pring-Wilson from today, but there haven't been camera crews or a large media presence on most days of the trial. But how did they find out? And why on earth didn't they publicize it ahead of time?
From what I've read and watched online, Pring-Wilson was more subdued than at his first trial. His direct examination lasted 45 minutes, and his lawyer told him not to get down from the stand and act out the fight like he did last time.
The only good news is that he didn't finish his testimony, so I will get to see the end of the cross examination tomorrow. Closing arguments might be scheduled for Monday.
Sources:
TheBostonChannel.com
WHDH
Boston Globe
My Fox Boston
From what I've read and watched online, Pring-Wilson was more subdued than at his first trial. His direct examination lasted 45 minutes, and his lawyer told him not to get down from the stand and act out the fight like he did last time.
The only good news is that he didn't finish his testimony, so I will get to see the end of the cross examination tomorrow. Closing arguments might be scheduled for Monday.
Sources:
TheBostonChannel.com
WHDH
Boston Globe
My Fox Boston
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Prosecution rests in Pring-Wilson trial
Today the prosecution finished calling witnesses against Alexander Pring-Wilson. The first witness of the day was Harjeet Singh, the manager of Pizza Ring, the restaurant near which the fatal fight between Pring-Wilson and Michael Colono occurred. Next up were Colono's mother, girlfriend, and sister, who described his background and interests. Wanda Rivera, Colono's oldest sister, said that he was interested in "getting a career and furthering his education" and was a lifelong baseball fan. Cindy Guzman, Colono's girlfriend, was the only one of these three witnesses to be cross examined. She admitted that she told Colono the day before the fight that she wanted to break up with him - which may have put him in an angry mood and made him more likely to attack Pring-Wilson - and that Samuel Rodriguez told her he was in the driver's seat of the car - the opposite of what the prosecution claims. Finally, the prosecution called James Connolly, a captain with the state police, to the stand and played clips of Pring-Wilson's testimony in the first trial.
The defense called its first witness today. Jennifer Lipman - a doctor, certified forensic pathologist, consultant, and professional expert witness - gave her opinion on Colono's wounds. She said that two of his five stab wounds were medical incisions, meaning that Pring-Wilson stabbed him only three times. The wound on Colono's wrist, she testified, was the right location, shape, size, and orientation to be made during a "cut-down" - when medical personnel make a cut in a patient's skin to find a vein. Also, the wound was too neat and clean to have been inflicted during a fight, and was located in the wrong place to be a defensive wound. One of the two wounds to Colono's lower abdomen was also made by medical personnel, said Dr. Lipman. The cut was the perfect size and location for a diagnostic peritoneal lavage - a procedure that doctors perform to tell if a patient has internal bleeding. Prosecutor Adrienne Lynch began cross examining Dr. Lipman but will finish tomorrow morning.
I also managed to catch the second half of yesterday's proceedings; sorry for not posting about it! I was there for the testimony of Dr. Faryl Sandler, the medical examiner who examined Colono's body. She described his five wounds, said that the one that punctured his heart was the cause of death, and said that the one on his wrist was consistent with being a defensive wound. I thought Peter Parker, Pring-Wilson's defense lawyer, did a good job on cross examination. He cast doubt on the claim that the wrist wound and one of the abdomen wounds were made by Pring-Wilson and made it seem like the other wounds didn't require a huge amount of force to inflict if the knife was sharp, long, and moving at a high velocity, and if the victim was moving toward the knife. He also mentioned that Dr. Sandler was not a board-certified pathologist and made a big deal of the fact that Dr. Sandler did an internal examination of Colono's head even though there were no outward signs of head injuries - hinting that people (such as Pring-Wilson) commonly have brain injuries that don't necessarily cause external symptoms.
I wasn't there for yesterday morning's events, but the Crimson reports that John Soares, a chemist, finished his testimony, and the prosecution entered Colono's bloody clothing into evidence. Check out their article for the full story.
The defense called its first witness today. Jennifer Lipman - a doctor, certified forensic pathologist, consultant, and professional expert witness - gave her opinion on Colono's wounds. She said that two of his five stab wounds were medical incisions, meaning that Pring-Wilson stabbed him only three times. The wound on Colono's wrist, she testified, was the right location, shape, size, and orientation to be made during a "cut-down" - when medical personnel make a cut in a patient's skin to find a vein. Also, the wound was too neat and clean to have been inflicted during a fight, and was located in the wrong place to be a defensive wound. One of the two wounds to Colono's lower abdomen was also made by medical personnel, said Dr. Lipman. The cut was the perfect size and location for a diagnostic peritoneal lavage - a procedure that doctors perform to tell if a patient has internal bleeding. Prosecutor Adrienne Lynch began cross examining Dr. Lipman but will finish tomorrow morning.
I also managed to catch the second half of yesterday's proceedings; sorry for not posting about it! I was there for the testimony of Dr. Faryl Sandler, the medical examiner who examined Colono's body. She described his five wounds, said that the one that punctured his heart was the cause of death, and said that the one on his wrist was consistent with being a defensive wound. I thought Peter Parker, Pring-Wilson's defense lawyer, did a good job on cross examination. He cast doubt on the claim that the wrist wound and one of the abdomen wounds were made by Pring-Wilson and made it seem like the other wounds didn't require a huge amount of force to inflict if the knife was sharp, long, and moving at a high velocity, and if the victim was moving toward the knife. He also mentioned that Dr. Sandler was not a board-certified pathologist and made a big deal of the fact that Dr. Sandler did an internal examination of Colono's head even though there were no outward signs of head injuries - hinting that people (such as Pring-Wilson) commonly have brain injuries that don't necessarily cause external symptoms.
I wasn't there for yesterday morning's events, but the Crimson reports that John Soares, a chemist, finished his testimony, and the prosecution entered Colono's bloody clothing into evidence. Check out their article for the full story.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Forensic scientists testify against Pring-Wilson
The prosecution continued to present its case today in the trial of Alexander Pring-Wilson. Paul Melaragni finished his testimony from yesterday. He said that he helped the police make a DVD of security camera footage of Pring-Wilson at the police station, and part of the footage was shown in court. Then, Eugene Hagan, a former chemist at the Mass. State Police Crime Lab, testified about how he examined evidence at the scene of the crime as well as at Pring-Wilson's apartment. Pring-Wilson's clothing and knife tested positive for blood, said Hagan, and the knife was hidden in what he described as a "crawl space" in Pring-Wilson's room. However, on cross examination Hagan admitted that he moved items around in the crawl space before taking pictures of the evidence. The next witness was George Behonick, a forensic toxicologist who examined Michael Colono's body and found that he had been drinking before the altercation with Pring-Wilson, but had not consumed any other drugs. Finally, John Soares, who examined evidence with Hagan, began his testimony today. He testified that Pring-Wilson's hands tested positive for blood, as did his raincoat and knife. Also, prosecutor Adrienne Lynch showed Colono's bloodstained clothing to the jury while Soares pointed out the stab marks in the clothes and described how he thinks they could have been inflicted. The trial will resume Monday.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Doctors, roommates testify in Pring-Wilson trial
I went to the Pring-Wilson trial this afternoon. I'm not sure what happened in the morning, but four witnesses took the stand in the afternoon. Kathleen Ahern, one of the EMTs who brought Pring-Wilson to the Cambridge Hospital after he was feeling ill at the police station, testified that he didn't seem too badly injured, had no trouble walking, and seemed alert. Dr. Richard Ma, who treated Pring-Wilson at the hospital on April 12 and 13, said that he performed fine on neurological tests, and that his only injuries were a cut on his foot and a cut on his head. On April 12, Pring-Wilson told Dr. Ma he was hungry, and he got him a sandwich from a party that was going on in one of the offices, and he had no trouble eating it. On the 13th, however, Pring-Wilson returned to the hospital, complaining of nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and a severe headache. A CAT scan was performed, which indicated he didn't have a concussion. On cross examination, defense lawyer Peter Parker brought up that Dr. Ma was just finishing his training at the time he examined Pring-Wilson, that his symptoms were consistent with a concussion, and that he had more injuries to his head, including a large bump near his left eye, than Dr. Ma had mentioned. The next two witnesses were Sarah and Zachary Daniels, who shared an apartment with Pring-Wilson before they got married. They both described how he went out on the night of April 11 after consuming a cocktail at home and then spoke to police officers at the apartment on the morning of the 12th. On cross examination, Sarah said that Pring-Wilson carried his knife all the time and used it for many things, including cutting apples and opening boxes. She also said that the message he left for Jennifer Hansen, with whom he had gone out on the night of the 11th/12th, did not reflect the way he normally speaks, making it seem more likely that he did indeed have a concussion when he called her. Finally, Paul Melaragni, who works for the Cambridge Police Department and specializes in voice recordings, started his testimony in the last few minutes. The message Pring-Wilson left for Hansen will probably be played for the jury when he continues tomorrow.
Friday, November 16, 2007
6 more witnesses testify against Pring-Wilson
Six more witnesses testified for the prosecution in the Pring-Wilson trial yesterday. The first three - Donald Mahoney, Robert Leary, and James Greene, were police officers who responded to Pring-Wilson's 911 call. They described how he told them he was just a witness to a stabbing and then pointed them in the direction he believed the victim and perpetrators had gone. According to the officers, Pring-Wilson didn't seem drunk and didn't appear to have any serious injuries.
After a recess, three more witnesses took the stand. Ricardo and Elizabeth Rodriguez, the brother and sister-in-law of Sammy Rodriguez, described how they went to Beth Israel Hospital after hearing about the stabbing and then picked up the car and found Colono's jacket, with several knife holes, in the back seat. Finally, detective John Fulkerson described how he talked with Colono's famliy members at the hospital after the stabbing and interviewed Pring-Wilson at the police station the next morning.
Sorry for posting this so late! Court got out at 1:00 today, but I don't know what went on, because I wasn't there. Hopefully there'll be some news coverage!
After a recess, three more witnesses took the stand. Ricardo and Elizabeth Rodriguez, the brother and sister-in-law of Sammy Rodriguez, described how they went to Beth Israel Hospital after hearing about the stabbing and then picked up the car and found Colono's jacket, with several knife holes, in the back seat. Finally, detective John Fulkerson described how he talked with Colono's famliy members at the hospital after the stabbing and interviewed Pring-Wilson at the police station the next morning.
Sorry for posting this so late! Court got out at 1:00 today, but I don't know what went on, because I wasn't there. Hopefully there'll be some news coverage!
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Rodriguez testifies against Pring-Wilson
Today at Alexander Pring-Wilson's trial, prosecution witness Samuel Rodriguez finished up his testimony, which he began Friday. Rodriguez was an eyewitness to the fight that resulted in the death of Michael Colono. He is also Colono's cousin. Rodriguez says Pring-Wilson opened the car door, challenged Colono to a fight, and stabbed him, and that he jumped in to defend his cousin. The defense contends that Rodriguez teamed up with Colono to attack Pring-Wilson and beat him to the ground.
Today's testimony began with the cross examination, as the direct had taken place on Friday. Defense attorney Peter Parker got Rodriguez to admit several inconsistencies: whether the car was on or off, whether Rodriguez was in the driver's seat (as the defense claims) or the passenger's seat (as he claims), and what exactly Colono called Pring-Wilson (initially an obscenity, but then Rodriguez changed it to "idiot"). Like Giselle Abreu, who was also in the car, Rodriguez admitted that he hadn't seen Pring-Wilson punch Colono or wield a knife until after he had been beaten to the ground. While trying to describe where he punched Pring-Wilson, Rodriguez began crying, which resulted in a 5-minute recess.
After the break, Parker brought up Rodriguez's past criminal convictions, all of which he admitted to. The list included the following:
Today's testimony began with the cross examination, as the direct had taken place on Friday. Defense attorney Peter Parker got Rodriguez to admit several inconsistencies: whether the car was on or off, whether Rodriguez was in the driver's seat (as the defense claims) or the passenger's seat (as he claims), and what exactly Colono called Pring-Wilson (initially an obscenity, but then Rodriguez changed it to "idiot"). Like Giselle Abreu, who was also in the car, Rodriguez admitted that he hadn't seen Pring-Wilson punch Colono or wield a knife until after he had been beaten to the ground. While trying to describe where he punched Pring-Wilson, Rodriguez began crying, which resulted in a 5-minute recess.
After the break, Parker brought up Rodriguez's past criminal convictions, all of which he admitted to. The list included the following:
- malicious destruction of property
- assault and battery
- possession of a firearm without a license and resisting arrest
- assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and malicious destruction of property (the prosecution got this one stricken from the record)
- assault and battery and assault with a dangerous weapon
- possession of a firearm and ammunition without a license
- carrying a concealed weapon without a license
Parker also brought up incidents when Rodriguez beat up his former girlfriend, threw bicycles at a car, threw a cup in his sister's eye,and pulled a knife out on his sister's husband. On re-direct, prosecutor Adrienne Lynch tried to get Rodriguez's violent incidents to look less bad, but in my opinion didn't do too well. Rodriguez did say that his ex-girlfriend wouldn't let him leave the house and that he apologized and called the police after he pushed her, but for the most part Lynch didn't get him to look much better.
After a brief re-cross, another witness began her testimony. Julianne Sitler described how she saw Rodriguez and Abreu parked in front of a store, yelling to passerby for directions to a hospital. She had some medical training and helped out until paramedics arrived. Her testimony helped the prosecution a little bit because it showed that Rodriguez and Abreu were trying to get help, not evade the police. However, she couldn't recall how many stab wounds Colono had, which is important in determining how viciously (or not) Pring-Wilson was stabbing him.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
2nd day of Pring-Wilson trial
Today, during the second day of Alexander Pring-Wilson's retrial, prosecution witness Giselle Abreu gave her version of the fatal events of April 12, 2003. Abreu was the girlfriend of Michael Colono's cousin, Samuel Rodriguez. During direct examination, she described how she, Rodriguez, and Colono were waiting in their car for a pizza when she saw Pring-Wilson stumbling down the street, and Colono started to make fun of him. Abreu said that Pring-Wilson asked Colono "Did you say something?" and Colono replied "Yeah. Why, you want to do something about it?" Pring-Wilson replied "Yes" and opened the car door, instigating the fight. She then described how she and Rodriguez realized that Colono had been stabbed, frantically tried to get to a hospital, and eventually ended up calling 911.
Abreu admitted that Colono had been drinking before the altercation and that she lied to police at the hospital, telling them that she was driving by when she saw Colono fighting with Pring-Wilson.
On cross examination, defense attorney Peter Parker got Abreu to admit that she had a physical fight with Rodriguez on April 12, something that she had denied during direct examination. He also asked if she had sniffed cocaine that day, which she flatly denied, and questioned her timeline of the events - she says that she and Rodriguez left an apartment in Lynn at midnight, drove to Colono's house, which was 45 minutes away, and then went to Pizza Ring, which was only a few minutes away from Colono's house. Cell phone records show that Pring-Wilson walked by the car at 1:50 a.m. Were they waiting for the pizza for a whole hour, or were they just driving around looking for trouble? Maybe most importantly, Abreu admitted that she didn't see Pring-Wilson's knife, and Colono didn't shout that Pring-Wilson had a knife, until Rodriguez had pulled him to the ground. This admission makes it seem more likely that Pring-Wilson pulled out the knife because he had been knocked to the ground, and not vice versa.
One funny thing I noticed was that during direct, Abreu and prosecutor Adrienne Lynch used the names Michael and Sammy to refer to Colono and Rodriguez and referred to Pring-Wilson by his last name or merely as "the defendant." Parker's first question on cross was something to the effect of "You were afraid of calling the police because of what Rodriguez and Colono had done to Alex, right?" But after two questions the judge made him stop! There was a brief bench conference, and then Parker resumed questioning, using the names Michael and Sammy. If the defense has to call them by their first names, shouldn't the prosecution have to call the defendant Alex?
Opening statements, as well as the beginning of Abreu's testimony, took place yesterday. Tomorrow Rodriguez is expected to testify. Should be interesting to see how much of his criminal history the defense will be allowed to bring up.
Abreu admitted that Colono had been drinking before the altercation and that she lied to police at the hospital, telling them that she was driving by when she saw Colono fighting with Pring-Wilson.
On cross examination, defense attorney Peter Parker got Abreu to admit that she had a physical fight with Rodriguez on April 12, something that she had denied during direct examination. He also asked if she had sniffed cocaine that day, which she flatly denied, and questioned her timeline of the events - she says that she and Rodriguez left an apartment in Lynn at midnight, drove to Colono's house, which was 45 minutes away, and then went to Pizza Ring, which was only a few minutes away from Colono's house. Cell phone records show that Pring-Wilson walked by the car at 1:50 a.m. Were they waiting for the pizza for a whole hour, or were they just driving around looking for trouble? Maybe most importantly, Abreu admitted that she didn't see Pring-Wilson's knife, and Colono didn't shout that Pring-Wilson had a knife, until Rodriguez had pulled him to the ground. This admission makes it seem more likely that Pring-Wilson pulled out the knife because he had been knocked to the ground, and not vice versa.
One funny thing I noticed was that during direct, Abreu and prosecutor Adrienne Lynch used the names Michael and Sammy to refer to Colono and Rodriguez and referred to Pring-Wilson by his last name or merely as "the defendant." Parker's first question on cross was something to the effect of "You were afraid of calling the police because of what Rodriguez and Colono had done to Alex, right?" But after two questions the judge made him stop! There was a brief bench conference, and then Parker resumed questioning, using the names Michael and Sammy. If the defense has to call them by their first names, shouldn't the prosecution have to call the defendant Alex?
Opening statements, as well as the beginning of Abreu's testimony, took place yesterday. Tomorrow Rodriguez is expected to testify. Should be interesting to see how much of his criminal history the defense will be allowed to bring up.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Jury selected for Pring-Wilson
A jury has been selected in the trial of Alexander Pring-Wilson. As promised, I went to the trial, and the day was taken up by jury selection. Judge Christopher Muse called numerous potential jurors individually to the stand to question them, and each juror was either dismissed by the judge (usually because of a hardship that made it difficult for them to serve), dismissed by defense or prosecution lawyers, or selected to be on the jury. After the judge finished questioning the first batch of jurors (numbers 68 to somewhere in the 120s), the next batch came in (about 145 to 180) and was told the basics of the case, introduced to the defendant and the lawyers, and questioned as a group. Judge Muse asked the jurors several questions, including whether they knew anyone involved in the case, had any affiliation with Harvard, knew anyone who worked for law enforcement, had heard of the case, had any problems with alcohol, or had a hardship that made it excessively burdensome for them to serve. Then the same individual questioning process happened again until 16 jurors had been selected.
At the end of the day, the 16 jurors came back into the courtroom, sat in the jury box, and received instructions from the judge to ignore media reports about the trial, avoid talking to anyone about the trial, and avoid doing independent research. The day ended at about 4:30.
Several of Pring-Wilson's friends and family members were present, as well as a couple of reporters. I bet the courtroom will be much more crowded tomorrow - the jurors are scheduled to visit locations important to the trial and then return to the courthouse for opening statements and testimony from the first three witnesses. The trial is set to last until December 7th. On Mondays and Wednesdays, the proceedings will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and on other days the trial will last from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
At the end of the day, the 16 jurors came back into the courtroom, sat in the jury box, and received instructions from the judge to ignore media reports about the trial, avoid talking to anyone about the trial, and avoid doing independent research. The day ended at about 4:30.
Several of Pring-Wilson's friends and family members were present, as well as a couple of reporters. I bet the courtroom will be much more crowded tomorrow - the jurors are scheduled to visit locations important to the trial and then return to the courthouse for opening statements and testimony from the first three witnesses. The trial is set to last until December 7th. On Mondays and Wednesdays, the proceedings will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and on other days the trial will last from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Pring-Wilson jury selection begins
According to the Harvard Crimson, jury selection began today in the retrial of Alexander Pring-Wilson. The Crimson reports that Pring-Wilson showed little emotion and that, surprisingly, there were few people in the courtroom.
I am planning to attend tomorrow's proceedings, so tomorrow night you'll hopefully have a firsthand account of what went on in the courtroom!
I am planning to attend tomorrow's proceedings, so tomorrow night you'll hopefully have a firsthand account of what went on in the courtroom!
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Pring-Wilson trial tomorrow
The retrial of Alexander Pring-Wilson, the Harvard grad student convicted in a high-profile murder case, is set to begin tomorrow. The defense will now be allowed to presnet more evidence to bolster Pring-Wilson's self-defense claims, including some of the following tidbits:
- Michael Colono, the alleged victim, threw money in the face of a restaurant cashier in 2001 and kicked the front door, shattering the glass
- In the same year, Colono verbally and physically assaulted passengers on a train and spit at the police officers who arrested him
- Samuel Rodriguez, Colono's cousin, repeatedly beat his girlfriend
- Rodriguez and his friends threw eggs at and then assaulted people in a passing car
- Rodriguez hit his sister in the eye with a plastic cup and then tried to stab his brother-in-law and smashed the windows of his car
According to the AP, the trial is expected to last 2-4 weeks, and Pring-Wilson is planning to testify in his own defense like he did at his first trial.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Entwistle trial may be delayed
The numerous problems at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab might affect the case of Neil Entwistle - or at least that's what Neil's lawyer, Elliot Weinstein, seems to think. So far, the lab has taken over five months to test DNA samples from ammunition boxes, gun locks, and other items that Entwistle may have touched while allegedly taking his father-in-law's gun to commit the murders. Weinstein says that when the results finally come in he'll have them tested again by a private company:
"We just have to deal with the reality that the workings of the state crime lab have been called into question. When the lab gets these results, we have every reason to question the results and to be able to have the public and trial juries be mindful that just because the state scientists say something does not mean it's accurate."
District Attorney Gerry Leone downplayed the possibility that the DNA mess will delay Entwistle's trial, which is currently scheduled to begin on October 1st.
Hmm, I wonder if Neil's trial will overlap with that of Alexander Pring-Wilson? At a hearing on Monday a judge set a tentative date of November 5th for the former Harvard grad student's retrial.
Thanks to the Boston Globe for some of my information.
P.S. In case anyone was wondering, there has still not been a ruling on Entwistle's motion to suppress from way back in April. I will post as soon as possible if I find out anything new about either of these two cases.
"We just have to deal with the reality that the workings of the state crime lab have been called into question. When the lab gets these results, we have every reason to question the results and to be able to have the public and trial juries be mindful that just because the state scientists say something does not mean it's accurate."
District Attorney Gerry Leone downplayed the possibility that the DNA mess will delay Entwistle's trial, which is currently scheduled to begin on October 1st.
Hmm, I wonder if Neil's trial will overlap with that of Alexander Pring-Wilson? At a hearing on Monday a judge set a tentative date of November 5th for the former Harvard grad student's retrial.
Thanks to the Boston Globe for some of my information.
P.S. In case anyone was wondering, there has still not been a ruling on Entwistle's motion to suppress from way back in April. I will post as soon as possible if I find out anything new about either of these two cases.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Pring-Wilson gets new trial
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ordered a new trial for accused murderer and former Harvard student Alexander Pring-Wilson. This is good news - I agree with Pring-Wilson's claim that he killed Michael Colono in self-defense. Check the Boston Globe for more details.
In other interesting crime news, Christopher Pittman turned 18 Monday. This teenager was convicted of killing his grandparents after he unsuccessfully tried to blame the medication Zoloft for the crime. It's surprising how many supporters he seems to have - not only does his family support him, but he is regularly visited by several individuals who never even knew him before the murders. Read more at Court TV.
Finally, now that we know who Anna Nicole Smith's baby's father is, there's a glimmer of hope that the news media will start covering more interesting stories than this boring, annoying case. I doubt it, though, but I can always hope!
In other interesting crime news, Christopher Pittman turned 18 Monday. This teenager was convicted of killing his grandparents after he unsuccessfully tried to blame the medication Zoloft for the crime. It's surprising how many supporters he seems to have - not only does his family support him, but he is regularly visited by several individuals who never even knew him before the murders. Read more at Court TV.
Finally, now that we know who Anna Nicole Smith's baby's father is, there's a glimmer of hope that the news media will start covering more interesting stories than this boring, annoying case. I doubt it, though, but I can always hope!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)